Judgment S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.-The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 19th April, 1997 passed by the learned 4th Add!. Sessions Judge, Singhbhum (West) in S.T. No. 30/1995, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for committing murder of Dukra Champia. 2. The case of the prosecution as per the statement of informant, Punami Kui (PW-4) is that in the evening of 13th September, 1993 at about 6.15 RM., she saw the appellant Budhu Hurad @ Tamaria brandishing a Kapi (Farsa) at a distance of about 50 yards from her house. The appellant was saying that he will kill all the persons belonging to Champia community. After some time, she• saw her husband, Dukra Champia (deceased) coming from the side of river. When he reached near the appellant Budhu Hurad, the appellant hurled a Kapi blow on the neck of her husband and chopped off his neck. Her husband fell down thereafter, the appellant Budhu Hurad again gave two to three blows of Kapi (Farsa) on is head. The informant further stated that when she raised alarm, Budhu Hurad, appellant chased her and told that he will also kill her, whereupon she went inside the house and closed the door due to fear. She further stated that on hearing alarm, none of the villagers had come because most of them had gone to celebrate Jomnama festival. In the night, when she went to see her husband, saw injuries on his neck and temporal region or her husband from which blood was oozing out and her husband was dead. She further stated that thereafter, she disclosed about the occurrence to the village Munda (Pw. 1) Bebra Munda Nag and her son, namely, Sukh Ram Champia (RW. 5) and others. 3. On the basis of aforesaid statement, Goilkara RS. Case No. 26/93 under section 302, I.RC. was instituted against the accused Budhu Hurad @ Tamaria. 4. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the sole accused under section 302, I.RC. Cognizance of offence was taken by the learned S.D.J.M., Porahat who committed the case to the court of session. 5. Charge was framed under section 302, I.P.C. and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution examined altogether six witnesses in support of its case. Cognizance of offence was taken by the learned S.D.J.M., Porahat who committed the case to the court of session. 5. Charge was framed under section 302, I.P.C. and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution examined altogether six witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1, Bebra Munda Nag who is the Munda of the Village is the hearsay witness. P.W. 2, Raas Tamaria only stated that he had gone to see the dead body. P.w. 3, Jarua Champia was declared hostile. P.W. 4, Punami Kui, informant-wife of the deceased is the only eye witness. Even P.W. 5, Sukh Ram Champia who is the son 9f the deceased is a hearsay witness. P.W.6, Dr. Mathura Prasad Singh conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased, Dukra Champia. P.W. 4, the informant of the present case and wife of the deceased is the sole eye witness. She deposed that the occurrence took place about three years back on a Monday in the evening at about 6 to 7 P.M. Her husband Dukra Champia had gone towards the river and when he was returning and reached near the house, the accused appellant Budhu Horad @ Tamariya had assaulted him with a Kapi (Farsa). Her husband received injuries on his Neck and right cheek. Due to the aforesaid injuries, her husband fell down and died. She further alleged that when she raised alarm, the accused appellant threatened her to kill. She narrated the action of the accused appellant. It was stated that the accused appellant was shouting that he will kill all the persons belonging to Champia community. At that moment her husband reached and was killed by the, appellant. She further stated that at the time of occurrence, her son Sukh Ram Champia had gone to see Jomnama festival and when he returned she told him about the occurrence. She further stated that she had made the statement before the Daroga in HO language which was translated by the village Munda in Hindi. The statement was read over and on understanding, she put her L.T.I. 7. During cross examination, she deposed that her son had gone to the police station and she also went there along with he dead body of her husband. The Daroga lad taken her statement in the Police Station as also in the village. The statement was read over and on understanding, she put her L.T.I. 7. During cross examination, she deposed that her son had gone to the police station and she also went there along with he dead body of her husband. The Daroga lad taken her statement in the Police Station as also in the village. She further deposed that the occurrence took place at 3 distance of about 50 yards from her louse in the western side and she was outside of her house at the time of occurrence. She further deposed that her husband could not yell when the accused 3ssaulted him as because his Neck was chopped off on the first blow. She denied the suggestion of the defence that she had not seen the occurrence and also denied that she was inside her house at the time of occurrence. 8. RW. 1, Bebra Munda Nag who is the village Munda deposed that on the date of occurrence, he was informed by RW. 4, Punami Kui that Budhu Horad had killed her husband. After receiving information, he went towards the house of Punami and saw the dead body of Dukra Champia lying on the road. He further deposed that in the Police Station, the statement of Punami was recorded by the Daroga on which he had also put his signature as a witness. He had proved his signature on the F.I.R. (marked as Ext. 1). He also deposed that the Daroga had prepared the inquest report in his presence in carbon process on which he and Sukh Ram Champia (P.W.5) had put their signatures as witnesses. He proved his signature and signature of Sukh Ram Champia on the inquest report (marked as Exts. 2 & 2/1). Nothing significant came out of cross examination which requires any discussion. 9. RW. 5, Sukh Ram Champia is the son of the deceased. He clearly stated that he was not present in the village at the time of occurrence and had gone for dancing in Jomnama festival. When he reached in the night at about 12'0 clock, he was told by his mother (informant) that Budhu Horad had killed his father. During cross examination, he deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the occurrence. 10. As stated above, P.W. 2, Raas Tamariya only stated that about two years back, he had gone to see the dead body of Dukra Champia. During cross examination, he deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the occurrence. 10. As stated above, P.W. 2, Raas Tamariya only stated that about two years back, he had gone to see the dead body of Dukra Champia. P.W. 3 was declared hostile by the prosecution and he had not supported the case of the prosecution. 11. P.W. 6, Dr. M.P. Singh is the doctor who held the post mortem on the dead body of deceased on 16th September, 1993 and found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased : (i) One incised wound 4" x 1/2 "x 3/4" on the right side of face, splitting the right ear pinna in the middle. (ii) One incised wound 7" x 6" X 1/2" running across the right side of face and neck cutting the right mandible bone, cutting the vessels and tissues on the right side of neck and also cutting the 3rd cervical vertebrae. (iii) One incised wound 6" x 2" X 1" on the left lower part of neck cutting through the vessels and tissues on the left side of neck. On dissection: Heart : Cranial bone intact. Brain and meningaspale and intact. Neck : Major vessels of both side . of neck were cut, 3rd Cervical vertebrae cut. Chest: Ribs were intact; lungs were pale and intact, heart chambers were intact and empty. Abdomen : Stomach was empty, liver spleen and kidneys were intact, bladder was empty. The doctor had opined that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased were caused by a sharp cutting weapon such as Farsa. The deceased had died due to the above injuries and also due to shock and haemorrhage. The doctor had proved the post mortem report (Marked Ext. 3). 12. From the evidence of P.W. 6. the doctor who conducted the post mortem on , the body of the deceased Dukra Champia, it will be evident that the deceased Dukra Champia had died homicide death which is also proved from the statement of P.Ws. 1. 2. 4 and 5. 13. So far as the question whether the 3.ccused. namely. Budhu Hurad @ Tamariya committed the offence or not, it hinges on the sole testimony of the eye witness P.W. 4, namely, Punami Kui. 14. 1. 2. 4 and 5. 13. So far as the question whether the 3.ccused. namely. Budhu Hurad @ Tamariya committed the offence or not, it hinges on the sole testimony of the eye witness P.W. 4, namely, Punami Kui. 14. In the case of Anil Phukan vs. State of Assam, reported in A.I.R. 1993 3.C. 1462, the Supreme Court held as follows: ".......... Indeed conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole eye witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the eyewitness is a wholly reliable witness. the Courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eye-witness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution then the Courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony in material particulars before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eye witness is wholly unreliable witness i.e. testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect ........:. 15. In the light of the aforesaid settled principles, if the testimony of P.W. 4, Punami Kui is examined, it will be evident that her statement given before the Court is consistent to that of earlier statement as made in the F.I.R. she had given a very consistent and vivid account of the occurrence. Nothing could be derived even after the cross examination of this witness upon which her credibility can be doubted. The descriptions given by her relating to injuries caused by accused Budhu Hurad @ Tamariya is in consonance with the description of injuries given by P.W. 6, the doctor that the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon such as Farsa. The evidence of P.W. 4 finds full corroboration from the medical evidence and the evidence of P.W.1, the village Munda who is an independent witness. 16. The evidence of P.W. 4 finds full corroboration from the medical evidence and the evidence of P.W.1, the village Munda who is an independent witness. 16. Thus, on the basis of evidence of P.W. 4, P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6, if the trial court held that the accused Budhu Hurad @ Tamariya had committed murder of Dukra Champia by inflicting Kapi (Farsa) blow, and that the accused appellant had committed an offence punishable u/s 302, I.P.C., no ground has been made out to differ with such finding. 17. So far as the submission as made by the counsel for the appellant that the defence has been seriously prejudiced due to non-examination of the I.O. such submission cannot be accepted in absence of any evidence to suggest how the defence has been prejudiced. 18. I find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly dismissed. Lakshman Uraon, J.-I agree.